In the spirit of the upcoming elections, stay informed at: The Culture Wars: Abortion Edition. Laura continues to bring together the important variables.

For the latest tidbits click here and here.

This is the new ad from the “yes for life” campaign in South Dakota. It’s a minute and 40 seconds of a whole slew of (white) doctors sharing their support for measure 11 and imploring the viewer to “stop abortion from being used as a form of birth control”…funny, I thought the bill was a ban on all abortions statewide. Oh I get it, they think ALL abortions are being used as birth control. I guess, in their estimation, no responsible person ever gets pregnant when they don’t want to. I must admit I’m personally offended by this assumption.

My favorite part is the use of a cardiologist, an allergist, and a otolaryngologist (fancy name for an ear nose and throat doctor) to speak out for measure 11. How are these people relevant at all? They happen to be doctors, but their expertise is completely irrelevant. How is a pediatrician relevant for the matter? Abortion is about women’s health, which is not in a pediatrician’s job description.

It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser as we slide deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.

Check out Laura Frankel’s watch on all issues and propositions related to our right to choose.  Click here.

Posted September 12, information on Prop. 4 on California’s ballot.

“Proposition 4, legally named Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy is an initiative that, if passed, would change California’s constitution. It is worth noting, however that many propositions that go to voters in California are in the form of amendments to the constitution, and it is not at all on the same level with amending the federal constitution. In this election alone, there are three other constitutional amendments on the ballot. If passed, the initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after a doctor has notified the minor’s parent or legal guardian. If there is REPORTED child abuse (i.e. incest/molestation/rape) then exceptions can be made—but these exceptions, it is worth noting, require a judicial hearing and permission of a judge. Most experts who understand youth cultures and the psychology of rape/incest/molestation, or anyone with children and/or common sense, understand that this initiative is not a way to get parents notified about their daughters choices, but is, in effect, a ban on abortion for minors. Supporters of the initiative would argue that this is in fact the point; if you eliminate abortion for minors then you eliminate teen pregnancy by eliminating sex—the theory being that girls under 18 are only sexually active because they know they can simply attain an abortion if necessary. This, however, remains to be seen, and is both infantilizing and paternalistic…in my opinion, of course.”